Stormy Daniels Offers to Return Payment to End Deal for Her Silence

[DonViejo]

Source: The New York Times




By JIM RUTENBERGMARCH 12, 2018

The pornographic film actress who says she had an affair with President Trump offered on Monday to return $130,000 she received from Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer in 2016 for agreeing not to discuss the alleged relationship.

In exchange, the actress, Stephanie Clifford, seeks an end to her deal to keep quiet about what she says was an affair with Mr. Trump that started in 2006 and lasted for several months.

In the letter, which was sent to Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer, Michael Cohen, early Monday, Ms. Clifford’s lawyer, Michael Avenatti, wrote that Ms. Clifford would wire the money into an account of Mr. Trump’s choosing by Friday.

Mr. Avenatti set a deadline of noon Tuesday for Mr. Cohen to answer the offer from Ms. Clifford, known professionally as Stormy Daniels, to answer his offer.



Read more: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/12/business/media/stormy-daniels-donald-trump.html

[Hav]

1. Interesting that they propose "an account of Trump's choosing"

I thought the story was that it was Cohens personal money. Let's see which account Trump's side chooses.

[Sancho]

2. Wow...I was worried that Cohen would lose his house - so generous of Stormy!

[ffr]

3. tRump should eagerly agree, since he's already stated there was no affair.

He's got everything to gain, including $130,000 that isn't even his money.

[keithbvadu2]

9. Win/win

[iluvtennis]

4. Word is that the $130K was illegally paid out of campaign funds which is violation of federal

campaign laws. Think Daniels' lawyer is playing on that with "an account of Mr Trump's choosing". LOL

[Bayard]

5. Smart

If he takes the money, he admits the affair. But 130K probably doesn't mean much to this guy.

[DeminPennswoods]

6. Are you kidding?

Trump stiffed contractors for less.

[Orsino]

11. Even if he says no, he'd be admitting to the affair.

(Or at least to being involved in the NDA. This is probably why staff won't let him respond.)

[Rainbow Droid]

7. My friends, this is what we call a "Lose/Lose". For Trump, of course.

He can't agree to this deal but he can't refuse either. Nor can he do nothing. He's screwed no matter what he does. Sound familiar?

It's a good thing that Trump is so incredibly inept at everything he does or Democracy would be in trouble.

Lets fix the system this time guys, before it's too late, and make sure this pervasive corruption, cronyism, racism, and nepotism never happens again, potentially with someone competent squatting in what is rapidly becoming The Oval Orifice.

[FakeNoose]

12. Yes and it's good that his lawyers are so stupid also

I love how this confirms that Stormy Daniels DID actually receive the money after all. Michael Cohen implied that the money was still in escrow, but she's got it now. There's no denying anything. She's going to talk (or write a book/make a movie) whether she gives the money back or not.

[Maxheader]

8. Adds more and more credibility

to the whole affair...

[bucolic_frolic]

10. Wait

I thought the deal was null and void because Trump hadn't signed it

Now they seem to think it's still valid unless she returns the moneyand he accepts

Can't have it both ways

[Calista241]

13. She took the money and has acted as if the agreement was in effect

That’s implied acceptance, and it does carry legal weight.

Trump has no reason to accept the return of the money. And he can and will put her in the poor house when she violates this agreement.

The forthcoming 60 minutes interview will be the test of the agreement. She has a liability of 1 million per infraction, and she has agreed to binding arbitration.

[moriah]

16. I still want to see her argue...

... that when she learned through the media that the money wasn't properly reported to the FEC, that she found herself a party to an illegal contract and wants it declared void on those grounds.

Lawyers always start out with the first potential way one could not be bound -- that it was never completed in the first place. It'd still be easier to prove that they spoke first compared to arguing election finance law, but if it was an illegal contract it was always void even if she acted as if she was bound by it.

[Calista241]

19. Shell have to prove where the funds came from.

If Cohen did in fact write her a check himself, as he has alleged, she’s going to have a high bar.

If Cohen was also an employee of the campaign, and received compensation from the campaign, then that question will have to be resolved. Were his payments at the time of the settlement higher than his normal payments?

Just saying the payments were illegal doesn’t make it so.

Trump could also come back and just sign the agreement. He could say they forgot to return a countersigned agreement, or he could say nothing. I have signed a lot of non-disclosure agreements in my work, and none of them anywhere has ever An execute by date attached to it.

[SeattleVet]

18. If you read the agreement (available in many places online)...

you will see that one of the paragraphs near the end in it states that it goes into effect upon signing by *all* parties. One party never signed. If there had been no 'signature required' portion, then they could have a better claim to the implied acceptance argument.

[gyroscope]

20. But if Dumpster goes after her for violating the agreement, he admits to the affair

....why would he do that?

Daniels should simply write her book, AND keep the 130k.

[moriah]

14. No, she could still offer to give the money back...

... in order to get them to agree it's invalid and drop their arbitration proceedings. Offers in lieu of judgment aren't uncommon.

It's most likely she'd have to give it back if a court declares the NDA invalid, anyway, or would at least make her case that it was never valid more solid if she's not trying to keep both the money and speak.

There's several ways the contract could be considered invalid now. First, that it was never valid because it wasn't signed. Second, because Trump's attorney spoke of it, he broke the terms. Third, which I'm not seeing argued yet but she should consider, that Stormy learned after the fact that the contract and the way the Cohen/Trump handled the money without reporting it constituted a violation of election finance laws, and she doesn't want to be part of an illegal contract (illegal contracts are always void).

Usually people will start with grounds to establish the contract was never fully entered into (the not signed part), then go with "in the alternative" arguments.

For example, a friend was sued by a debt collector who didn't obey state law by attaching either the cardmember agreement or an affidavit stating it was unavailable. His attorney filed a motion to dismiss based on insufficient process, a motion for a more definite statement (giving them 10 days to amend to add the cardmember agreement if the judge decided not to dismiss), and a generic answer in case the judge rejected both motions. Potentially overkill, except that they bit on responding to both Motions and admitted the documents had been available but requested more than the 10 days because it was in another office. His attorney said their response admitting they could have gotten the documents before filing meant the process was officially insufficient. And thus got the dismissal, even if the evidence for the dismissal came in their response to the MDS motion.

[bucolic_frolic]

15. This is why I'm not a lawyer

and to think it was my goal at one time to go to law school

Thanks!

[machoneman]

17. The best part? All this back and forth....

keeps the story alive, we hope for weeks and weeks to come!

Those Secret Service dudes had better keep a firm hand on their guns when Malaria, I mean, Melania is around Trump! Bad things could happen......